Canada is a free country now

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Who said anything about it being male exclusive?

I'm sure women are going to clamour for clubs where they can bang strangers. You think?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You think ordinary people are going to ignore it and let it rest?

Yes.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm sure women are going to clamour for clubs where they can bang strangers. You think?

They certainly seem to be.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The fact that you think he would be dumb to do it speaks volumes for him to do so. However, he didn't make it a big deal. The SCoC did. You think ordinary people are going to ignore it and let it rest?

Absolutely. In fact, I haven't heard anything about it since the initial ruling except from you. Not on the talk radios, not on the news, not even in idle chatter with people.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

They certainly seem to be.

I wouldn't guess that the 'they' was predominately female.

You may differ, of course, and we'll see how it turns out.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Asher
I still have major qualms with people like notyoueither thinking they understand people and their situations better than the people themselves. It breeds from arrogance mixed with a sense of moral authority, and it's devastating to the people they're trying to protect.

Bingo.

[Beta]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And we will get the straight jacket. If any of you think Canada is about to break out into a huge case of Holland, I have a whole other side of this country you should get aquainted with.

Oh that side. The one where the farmers are one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the country, and oil revenues subsidize the government, and good old family values rule supreme. Give me Holland, please.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have sex outside of a private residence, you go to jail

So where do hotels and motels stand?

Me and 3 friends can rent a room with 2 double beds and go swinging. That is a commercial establishment we've used for swinging. Is anyone at fault?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


According to Flubber, the law was good enough for a hundred years or so. I guess they did a really bad job, eh?

Thats not what I said. The language has been pretty much the same for the last hundred years and the courts have always had the same problem-- how do you define indecency?? The problem has increased as Canada has become more multicultural.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I find it peculiar that people are interpreting an aversion to women being victims of exploitation to be based on religious principles that I have never expressed.

More like any opposition to a libertine lifestyle is kneejerk equated with religion.

Hmm why do you assume that it is always the woman that is the reluctant one??

Could it not be that hubby is the one not so happy to be there and see his wife get off with 4-5 well-endowed studs 20 years his junior?? I could imagine that some men are in that type of boat but probably figure they would lose their young hottie wife if they tried to go back to monogamy.

I can come up with all sorts of scenarios where a swinger is reluctant, has second thoughts etc.

I can also come up with similar scenarios within monogomous relationships or marriages where peopel have sex because it is expected or because of emotional dependence on someone.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the law must assume free will on the part of all participants

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither That is why I conceded the point 2 or 4 pages back to the nice lawyer who pointed out what the problem was.

aww shucks

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You can't smoke, but you can ****. That would be quite a decision.

Well are there any known dangers of second-hand ****ing??

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think that discretion in sentencing is essential. The discretion as to whether or not a crime has even occurred is not.

That was the problem with the indecency law. On an AGREED statement of admitted facts, you could have one judge saying guilty and another saying not guilt depending on the personal tolerance level of the judge

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
But not if law makers have to make straight jacket laws.

You have sex outside of a private residence, you go to jail.

That there would be a fine law, and we may have to live it, because our courts are 'tired' of having to excercise some judgement.

That is not what the majority said-- They did not ask Parliament to enact a new law-- They did comment on the "moral' nature of an indecency law and the difficulty in getting to a standard as to what is or is not indecent. They talked at length about the evolution of the test for "indecency"-- how it started as a community standards type test but over the years has come more and more to require some form of harm. The majority truly seems to view this as an evolution and NOTa revolution

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's what the SCoC was asking for, if I understand Flubber correctly. Don't give them latitude to make a decision. Give them hard and fast rules.

They want George Bush and the Republicans.

140 years of Canadian common sense, and centuries before that from Britain aren't good enough guides for them.

You do not understand correctly-- The majority is fine with their interpretation and absent statutory amendment all the courts will take this guidance in interpreting the law.

If parliament does not like this interpretation, they will need to change the law. They always have that option.